People think I'm asserting something here. Please reconsider this. I never said, "Eureka! I've found the root of it!" What I found was a period document that made assertions and posted that material verbatim, with a publishing reference. The post clearly stated, it was for those who wanted to do your own homework.

In my case, I had never seen that material before and could not validate or invalidate it. And, considering the broad knowledge base of the members of Bullshido, might someone with better knowledge provide that by countering Lee's version with clarifying information?

Right now, no one has done that. The response has been words to this affect: "You're wrong. We only post good information." This should be where more able people advance everyone's knowledge by weighing in with better histories, time lines, etc.

I don't have to be right; the information has to be right. So, if someone can refute the history from the 1976 Lee document, please do so. It's of no loss to me if bad information is challenged and better information is advanced.

People think I'm asserting something here. Please reconsider this. I never said, "Eureka! I've found the root of it!" What I found was a period document that made assertions and posted that material verbatim, with a publishing reference. The post clearly stated, it was for those who wanted to do your own homework.

In my case, I had never seen that material before and could not validate or invalidate it. And, considering the broad knowledge base of the members of Bullshido, might someone with better knowledge provide that by countering Lee's version with clarifying information?

Right now, no one has done that. The response has been words to this affect: "You're wrong. We only post good information." This should be where more able people advance everyone's knowledge by weighing in with better histories, time lines, etc.

I don't have to be right; the information has to be right. So, if someone can refute the history from the 1976 Lee document, please do so. It's of no loss to me if bad information is challenged and better information is advanced.

Since we are twisting words your excuse is, "it is not my job to check information I just post it, do your own homework."

Gotcha.

There is no question in your OP it is a statement. So, why you thought someone should give you new information is strange.

On topic for the entire History of Hapkido debate I just read through regarding what was posted by Nira and some others.

From my research and what I've been told there is A lot of debate in the core of Hapkido's History as to who the actual creator of the style 'Hapkido' was and where the roots lie. I read through everything you posted and I'll basically just put up front that it's is all theory and there isn't enough known to completely prove either side. As stated it is a lot of nation conflict between Korea and Japan as to what the style's actual roots are. Koreans of course argue roots of Korea in that Choi Yong Sool was the creator and made the core aspects of Hapkido, the Japanese the opposite in believing that Sokaku Takeda instructed Choi Yong Sool, so that the roots lay in Japan with Daito-Ryu Aiki-Jiujitsu. For the most part the writings you quoted are generally deemed as the most accurate, and also what I believe to be true.

And Takeda Sokaku is credited as to having taught Choi Yong Sool on this tree.

Also I believe that anyone who has seen or studied both Aikido and Hapkido can see the very acute likeliness of the two styles in technique principles, which is why I still continue to believe that the core roots of both Aikido and Hapkido lie in Japan from Sokaku Takeda's teachings of Daito-Ryu Aiki-Jiujitsu, this is also why you can see a lot of Judo likeliness as well in Hapkido.

For this topic you have to do your own research and form your own opinion for this history, and basically choose a side. I haven't run into any hard evidence that 100% proves either side correct, but I lean towards the roots lying in Japan, in the end Hapkido itself I do not believe has existed thousands of years, it's roots however have.

Basically you can go to google, type in "Hapkido's History" and find quite a handful of different views.

@ Original Topic

Hapkido has been great to me, and I am fortunate to have a great instructor. I have an extremely firm belief that an instructor's quality is what really makes or breaks someone's first initial mindset on a style they haven't seen or practiced before. Since you already have two years into it I'm sure you know what I mean.

I feel it is an all encompassing style when taught at it's best, and that it covers most aspects of both defense and offense. It is also wholesome in the large amount of variety in techniques, that generally cover hand, foot, throws, and some basic grappling.

In the end however, as stated earlier believe it is heavily dependent on the environment, the types of students, and the instructor(s) that determines what you really get out of training any style or art.

I'll just comment on the original topic, I've got a background in TKD and Ju Jitsu and my Hapkido training has been the most challenging of any art I've done. long hard workouts, realistic technique, and an instructor that is open to what other styles can add.

A generic anecdote is not grounds for resurrecting a thread that is nigh on a year old. Vapid use of "realistic" doesn't win you any points, either; if you had the foggiest idea of what that word meant, you wouldn't have used it. Next time you want to use this important-sounding word, do kindly smack yourself, and then say something that is meaningful (e.g. "we apply techniques in sparring with x-resistance and protection").

OK, We apply techniques with increasingly more resistance based on your rank and ability. Therefore when learning an elbow lock at white belt level little resistance is utilized then as you progress the resistance continues to build to make the training effective.

Positive attitude notwithstanding, no. When a thread is dead for more than a few months, that's generally a good indicator that the topic has been exhausted and it's time to move on. Even in the event that you had something particularly insightful to contribute, it would probably deserve its own thread. Otherwise, just chiming-in at this point is more self-indulgent than anything.